Like all rulings of the "Supreme Court", today's against Ministerial freezing of assets without parliamentary approval should itself have no effect unless and until ratified by a resolution of the House of Commons. The true Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the High Court of Parliament.
But what if the MPs did not ratify this and other important rulings in defence of liberty and justice? They would, if they were elected in a manner which reflected a broader range of opinion, having been selected as candidates by the electorate as a whole, and being dependent for funding on wider civil society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I prefer to call them the 'Law Lords'. I've no time for these New Labour cultural revolutionaries trying to wreck our ancient institutions.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like David Stoddart, or the late Peter Shore and George Thomas. And that is a very good thing indeed.
ReplyDeleteHigh praise!
ReplyDeleteMy first thought simply was how banal it seemed. Every country, from the most awful banana republic to the most flourishing democracy, has a 'Supreme Court'. However, only one had a 'Lords of Appeal in Ordinary'. They were also very useful in the House of Lords as legal experts to act as a counterbalance to the number of partisans - I refer, of course, to the barristers and solicitors - that populate Parliament.
Yes, it's always about having what everyone else has. Rather like the Israelites' demanding of Samuel to give them a king...
ReplyDelete